PsicopJeffG wrote:

From [[Wikipedia:Bug_reports]]: "Ettiquete: Contribute useful comments; useless
comments (i.e. advocacy) increase the signal to noise ratio."

Sorry about the fluff at the beginning.

Jeffrey O. Gustafson
Inconsequential Admin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jeffrey_O._Gustafson

ral315 wrote:

Not sure if this would necessarily be a problem on most wikis, but I do agree
that this should be fixed in new page patrol (would it hurt to have newpage
patrol cover all namespaces? This would also allow articles accidentally
created in namespaces, i.e. something like [[Help: The Beatles album]] or
[[Wikipedia: An essay by Bob]])

snoutwood wrote:

Although this is an enhancement in some sense, I'd consider this to be more of a
general bug (hence the change, in case anyone was wondering).

ral315 wrote:

Fixed by Rob Church, apparently.

robchur wrote:

(In reply to comment #4)

Fixed by Rob Church, apparently.

It was?

ral315 wrote:

No, I'm an idiot. All you added was namespace
filtering of the new page log. It fixes part of the
problem, but what Jeffrey wanted was the logging of
page moves in the log. Reopened, I guess.

snoutwood wrote:

This has started to be an actual vandalism concern now, rather than a
hypothetical: see [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Vanity page
creators bypassing new page patrol]] and the examples listed there (namely
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=move&user=Doberman316&page=]
and
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Cupton]).

rahaminat wrote:

We need this. I've recently killed a bunch of vanity/crud pages, by patrolling
the move log, which were created in the user space and then moved after a delay
into the mainspace. While at first I feared posting on the noticeboard because
it might attract the wrong kind of attention, I thought it much better to have
more eyes on the move log. Putting these pages into the regular new pages bin
would be a much better solution.

Thanks to anyone who takes this on.

ayg wrote:

I'm not sure I agree with this. Logically, moved articles are not new: they've been there the whole time. This is how we currently treat them at all levels. Needless to say, move logs need to be patrolled too to protect against this, just as all changes do: not everything is in one log, for good reason. You might want to request that the move log be filterable on the target namespace (not that that's likely to happen soon).

I suggest WONTFIX.

snoutwood wrote:

(In reply to comment #9)

I'm not sure I agree with this. Logically, moved articles are not new: they've
been there the whole time. This is how we currently treat them at all levels.
Needless to say, move logs need to be patrolled too to protect against this,
just as all changes do: not everything is in one log, for good reason. You
might want to request that the move log be filterable on the target namespace
(not that that's likely to happen soon).

I suggest WONTFIX.

But it's not the article that's new - it's the article title. It seems to me that the creation of a new title (as previously there was only one - the article - and now there's the article plus a redirect) should generate an instance in the new pages log.

ayg wrote:

You could argue either way. I would say that the purpose of the new page log is to track new content, not new titles. New pages need to be tracked because they're more likely to deviate from site policy, as changes aren't woven into existing material; and because they aren't on anyone's watchlists. Neither of these is a concern for moved pages per se, although in certain rare cases it can be. If anything, I would say that effectively merging the move log and the new pages log would greatly reduce the utility of the latter, just by clogging it up.

cannon.danielc wrote:

Marked WONTFIX. I agree with Simetrical -- this seems to be a misinterpretation of what Special:Newpages is.